"...heterogeneity and diversity of our party"

[kentuck]

These comments are from a letter to the editor in the NYTimes. What do you think of his idea of "homogenizing and centralizing" our message?
=====================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/opinion/l03bradley.html

<snip>
I disagree with former Senator Bill Bradley's hypothesis regarding the central cause of the Democratic Party's "inversion" ("A Party Inverted," Op-Ed, March 30).

The failures of the Democratic Party are not attributable to our longing for another J.F.K.-type figure to lead the way. Rather, we are weakened by the fundamental premises of our own ideology.

We place a very high value on the heterogeneity and diversity of our party. But by promoting heterogeneity and diversity, we are dispersing our power instead of consolidating it.

If we want to make progress, we need to focus on constructing a set of clear and concise principles and values that centralizes and homogenizes our message, but not our members.

[Warpy]

1. The inversion

is because the party took working class economic issues off the table 30 years ago and the working class has either left in favor of bait and switch tax cuts or has simply gotten discouraged and stopped voting at all.

[Zorra]

2. Something to keep in mind when considering centralizing the Dem message:

"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right." - George Lakoff

IMO, if we homogenize the message, we need to make sure it is the message of the Democratic party, not the DLC or republican party.

[kentuck]

3. But, does a "centralized" message have to be the same as Repubs??

Could it not be a Democratic message?

[lonestarnot]

4. Divide and conquer... moving centrist Wrong and stupid! n/t

[acmavm]

5. I disagree completely with this person. As in the following snippet:

'If we want to make progress, we need to focus on constructing a set of clear and concise principles and values that centralizes and homogenizes our message, but not our members.' How can that be possible? It recognizes the diversity in democratic party members, but fails to recognize that along with the diversity of the members comes a diversity of needs and opinions. We need to be the party of equality, fairness, integrity, courage, and JUSTICE. This person is saying that we should be a middle-of-the-road inflexible unthinking political body unwilling and incapable of the intelligence and integrity that is necessary to deal with the ever changing, undeniable differences that life on this planet demands.

And who's pricipals and values are they gonna use? Do you think that what's right and good for your white corporate CEO is fitting and proper for the homeless? For a black woman struggling to take care of her children while the same white corporate CEO is trying to coerce and cajole the government of her state to take away the only access to food, housing, and healthcare she has? What about the American Indian. Should we use the white CEO's rules while deciding policy for the people that once roamed across this country until it was taken from them, along with their freedom, religion, and way of life? Or maybe we'll apply the rules of the white man's God as determined by his representatives (the white man's preacher), a God that was apparently so harsh and cruel that the American Indian was called uncivilized, heathen, barbaric. A race that listened to the spirits and saw god in every blade of grass. I'm not trying to say that they were non-violent spiritualists, but I am saying that they were not the force of destruction that the white man was.

We (the democratic party) were at our best when we were the party of every man, woman, and child. We don't lose our strength when we are diverse. We lose our strength when we lose the courage to fight for truth, justice, and the American way (like the intro to Superman used to tell us).

[Selteri]

6. We have a VERY strong message, we just have chosen not to use it.

Since the Republicans have become the religious party we are the party of strength. We stand together for the common causes that ALL people can benefit from, Republican or Democrat.

Our party hasn't changed it's tune, just gotten shy about it. The things we stand for are things that every American would stand for.

Responsible spending and budget Balancing.

Freedom for everyone, not just a few select few.

Equality for everyone, not just one religious sect.

The party of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the documents we were founded on, not this gibberish that we were founded on the constitution.

We are the party of privacy in the bedroom.

We are the party that hasn't had 4 presidents in a row that took part in scandals where laws were broken and trampled upon. (I don't count Ford, nobody voted for him. If you include him that's 5.)

We are the party that birthed FDR, that birthed JFK and birthed Bill Clinton.

We are the party of bloom up, not trickle down economics.

Put simply, we are the party of all the people, whether they vote for us or not, they are the party that would use the constitution for toilet paper so they can wrap themselves in the flag, just as we were warned of by Roosevelt.